3 ms·

Is SpaceX also not a recipient of de facto subsidies from US government? No shame if so, and they are doing good work, just that might be a better point if com

Is SpaceX also not a recipient of de facto subsidies from US government? No shame if so, and they are doing good work, just that might be a better point if comparison.

TMWNN 3y ago
> Is SpaceX also not a recipient of de facto subsidies from US government? Unless you consider any contract from the government = "subsidies", no.
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  Let's be honest, most aerospace/defemce related government contracts are, at least in some part. I knew a guy who worked at the Boeing Osprey plant in Philly and he said it was a job factory, not a helicopter factory.
  - TMWNN 3y ago
    I don't disagree. But that said, there is still a meaningful difference between what people normally think of when "subsidies" is mentioned—something akin to Mayor Quimby getting a sack with dollar signs written on it—and the military being your customer. SpaceX is the latter; the Arianespace subsidies the Ars Technica article discusses are the former.
    - rich_sasha 3y ago
      It sort of is and isn't different. They are both a pat on the shoulder from the government, saying "we've got your back". You run your business very differently depending on whether you know you have that backstop or not. For a long time SpaceX looked very touch-and-go at best, but could keep up the momentum with promises of government contracts. Ariane will instead achieve the cost "savings" by receiving some cash, then charging its clients (often governments) a lower price. Either way, I'm not taking away from SpaceXs achievements.
      - nickik 3y ago
        Sure it helps to have a large costumer, its still quite different. Its not 'we've got your back' as it is 'we need to do these things and you are the best costumer we could find'. SpaceX contracts were very contested, and while it helped them borrow money against the CRS contract, they ended up bidding so low that they basically didn't make any money from it. For your standard NASA launch, there is also competition and you have to bid. Granted there aren't that many competitors but you can't just set a incredibly high cost. But its important to recognize that Ariane also gets government contract launches. Not as many, but they still get quite a few. That is in addition to the gigantic amount they get for new development, far, far more then SpaceX got. And in addition to that they ALSO get a direct subsidy. So when comparing to apples to apples, Ariane is dipping in government money pool for basically everything, development, operations and contracts. SpaceX for rockets only got very limited funds for development, non for operation but gets contracts. So to my mind, SpaceX getting 300M for Falcon 9 and nothing Falcon Heavy, while Ariane is getting 5 billion $ for a inferior rocket that is mostly based on stuff that was already in development and is only iterative improvement over the Ariane 5. Its patently ridiculous for Ariane bureaucrats to claim SpaceX is getting subsidies, while they literally just received 5 billion $ for a rocket upgrade. SpaceX didn't get 5 billion $ for development of cargo and human capsule plus Falcon rocket. We are talking a whole different dimension in terms of direct subsidy here. That is also why Ariane bureaucrats just talk about how unfair everything is and have not actually entered anything into the WTO. Because they know they would get laughed out of the room. So its really just them lying and hoping nationalists and depended politicians will eat it up.

Is SpaceX also not a recipient of de facto subsidies from US government? No shame if so, and they are doing good work, just that might be a better point if comparison.

TMWNN 3y ago

> Is SpaceX also not a recipient of de facto subsidies from US government? Unless you consider any contract from the government = "subsidies", no.

iancmceachern 3y ago
Let's be honest, most aerospace/defemce related government contracts are, at least in some part. I knew a guy who worked at the Boeing Osprey plant in Philly and he said it was a job factory, not a helicopter factory.
- TMWNN 3y ago
  I don't disagree. But that said, there is still a meaningful difference between what people normally think of when "subsidies" is mentioned—something akin to Mayor Quimby getting a sack with dollar signs written on it—and the military being your customer. SpaceX is the latter; the Arianespace subsidies the Ars Technica article discusses are the former.
  - rich_sasha 3y ago
    It sort of is and isn't different. They are both a pat on the shoulder from the government, saying "we've got your back". You run your business very differently depending on whether you know you have that backstop or not. For a long time SpaceX looked very touch-and-go at best, but could keep up the momentum with promises of government contracts. Ariane will instead achieve the cost "savings" by receiving some cash, then charging its clients (often governments) a lower price. Either way, I'm not taking away from SpaceXs achievements.
    - nickik 3y ago
      Sure it helps to have a large costumer, its still quite different. Its not 'we've got your back' as it is 'we need to do these things and you are the best costumer we could find'. SpaceX contracts were very contested, and while it helped them borrow money against the CRS contract, they ended up bidding so low that they basically didn't make any money from it. For your standard NASA launch, there is also competition and you have to bid. Granted there aren't that many competitors but you can't just set a incredibly high cost. But its important to recognize that Ariane also gets government contract launches. Not as many, but they still get quite a few. That is in addition to the gigantic amount they get for new development, far, far more then SpaceX got. And in addition to that they ALSO get a direct subsidy. So when comparing to apples to apples, Ariane is dipping in government money pool for basically everything, development, operations and contracts. SpaceX for rockets only got very limited funds for development, non for operation but gets contracts. So to my mind, SpaceX getting 300M for Falcon 9 and nothing Falcon Heavy, while Ariane is getting 5 billion $ for a inferior rocket that is mostly based on stuff that was already in development and is only iterative improvement over the Ariane 5. Its patently ridiculous for Ariane bureaucrats to claim SpaceX is getting subsidies, while they literally just received 5 billion $ for a rocket upgrade. SpaceX didn't get 5 billion $ for development of cargo and human capsule plus Falcon rocket. We are talking a whole different dimension in terms of direct subsidy here. That is also why Ariane bureaucrats just talk about how unfair everything is and have not actually entered anything into the WTO. Because they know they would get laughed out of the room. So its really just them lying and hoping nationalists and depended politicians will eat it up.